Recent discussions brought into sharp focus the ongoing controversy surrounding the ‘fake news’ inquiry, the growing calls for enhanced ethical guidelines within the Supreme Federal Court (STF), and the alarming surge in violence following a high-profile drug lord’s death in Mexico. These multifaceted issues underscore a period of significant judicial and public security debate, prompting leading commentators to weigh in on their implications for national stability and rule of law.
The Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) has formally requested the President of the Supreme Federal Court, Edson Fachin, to conclude the ‘fake news’ inquiry. This investigation, initiated in March 2019, has been active for six years within the Court, raising profound institutional concerns about its prolonged duration and legal conformity.
The OAB’s appeal emphasizes “extreme institutional concern with the permanence and legal conformation of long-running investigations.” It further notes that “its conduct and permanence over time demand even greater caution, with strict observance of the exceptionality that gave it origin and the constitutional limits that legitimize state action.” This highlights a tension between the initial justification for the inquiry and its current lengthy status.
Fake news inquiry faces calls for immediate closure
The inquiry into ‘fake news’ regained prominence after a search and seizure operation, authorized by Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the inquiry’s rapporteur. This operation targeted four Federal Revenue Service employees suspected of accessing and leaking confidential data related to relatives of STF justices. This development reignited discussions about the inquiry’s scope and necessity.
According to commentator Helio Beltrão, the inquiry must be brought to a swift conclusion. He asserts that “an inquiry is investigative police work, meant to gather evidence for presentation to the Judiciary, which then decides whether to accept the case for trial.” Beltrão vehemently argues against the STF’s role in leading such an investigation.
He added, “No court can command an investigation. While the law allows the Supreme Court to investigate crimes committed on its premises, [Dias] Toffoli leveraged this loophole, opening this inquiry. He performed a ‘magic trick’ to bring the power to control the entire process of possible crimes committed on social media and public platforms under the STF’s purview. This ‘trickery’ became a political instrument and a tool of persecution against critics of the Supreme Federal Court.”
Conversely, Alessandro Soares acknowledges the inquiry as a source of concern, yet notes that even the OAB recognizes its exceptional nature and legitimate inception. Soares suggests that determining the appropriate time for its termination requires a close examination of the inquiry’s original objectives and the actions taken by the rapporteur thus far. He emphasizes the need to assess whether new crimes have been uncovered and the potential for identifying further illicit connections among those involved in the investigation.
Manifesto seeks judicial ethical clarity
A coalition of civil, legal, and business entities recently released a manifesto titled “No One is Above the Law,” advocating for “institutional and ethical sanitation of the Judiciary.” The document also calls for “transparent definition of ethical parameters that guide the actions of justices in superior courts.” This collective voice amplifies existing pressures on the judicial system.
Beltrão highlighted the increased pressure on the Supreme Court, characterizing the current situation as “the worst crisis in the Supreme Court’s history.” He stressed the importance of this manifesto, especially given the involvement of diverse entities, including the business community. Beltrão maintained that the primary issue is the justices’ perceived failure to uphold the Constitution and legal statutes.
Soares described the situation as “extremely delicate.” He emphasized that “criticism is more than necessary, but it applies not only to the Supreme Court but also to other judicial bodies and the conduct of individuals holding key positions in both superior and local courts. It is a legitimate, generalized critique, occurring amidst this period of heightened tension.”
Mexico’s cartel violence: a stark warning for Brazil?
Following the execution of Nemesio “El Mencho” Oseguera Cervantes by military forces, Mexico has experienced an intense wave of violence and insecurity. This situation draws parallels with Brazil’s long-standing struggle against organized crime, notably the Comando Vermelho (CV) and Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC), which have expanded from local operations to national and international ramifications. The comparison serves as a critical alert for the Brazilian context in 2025.
Helio Beltrão warned against Brazil reaching the same level of instability. He argued that “organized crime is infiltrated in the state, including politics. Here, it’s different from Mexico; there, it’s drug and arms trafficking, while here it’s a broader criminal infiltration, involved in daily life. The solution here demands political will.” This perspective underscores the deep-seated nature of Brazil’s criminal challenges.
Alessandro Soares noted the organized crime’s “capacity to paralyze a city like São Paulo, as happened in 2006.” He further elaborated on the fragmented approach to combating these groups, stating, “In these past 20 years, the confrontation has been regional, with each state operating within its own competencies, without unification. Today, organized crime functions as an enterprise here, in Mexico, and worldwide, necessitating a more cohesive strategy.”